Wrong on voter ID II
I'm confused by Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley's ruling striking down state law's requirement that voters present proper identification to vote.
As it stands, enrollees for ObamaCare will need to provide a Social Security card, as well as some other form of identification along with tax returns, to enroll in the program.
But this cannot be correct. As all Americans realize by now, obtaining identification is extremely difficult for some. In fact, if one is asked to provide identification at a polling place to vote, many believe that is a form of voter disenfranchisement. However, for a person to get government assistance, the applicant will have to provide the names, birthdates, Social Security numbers and incomes of each person in the household and answer questions regarding any assets.
President Obama made the (outrageous) statement that health insurance is not a privilege, but a right. If voting is a right and health insurance is a right, why is it discriminatory to ask for identification to vote, but not to enroll in health insurance?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Treat UNC like PSU
- Better stores needed
- Intelligent discussion overdue
- Ambrosini’s logic lacking
- Superstition’s role
- Barbour sentence shameful
- Embrace domestic energy production
- Making it special
- The email cleanup
- Wake up, voters
- Inconsistent Wolf